Basically, the authors did two things: 1) calculated the average growth rate in cases of COVID-19, and for some reason called this average R(ADIR) 2) used linear regression to predict R(ADIR) using a few oddly-chosen variables
-
-
On to the FOURTH big mistake: multiplying weirdly Basically they used that linear extrapolation to find that R(ADIR) = 0 when total cases/1,000 = 6.6, and then assumed that since this meant immunity, the other 993.4 people must've been exposed to COVID-19pic.twitter.com/MoH05TDwkZ
Show this thread -
This is nonsensical. Even taking their entire approach at face value, the correlation between these two variables was only r^2 = 0.22 It is, again, simply wrong to just multiply the values out like this, because quite clearly there is more going on
Show this thread -
There are numerous other errors in the study, but I think I've made my point If I were the author or the journal, I'd retract the study immediately But that's just me
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
